ARTICLE CONTINUES:
Robert Johnson (left), business magnate and founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), has joined the mounting list of CEOs and business leaders who are questioning President Obama’s incessant demagoguing of America’s wealthy. On “Fox News Sunday,” Johnson suggested that the President “recalibrate his message,” so as not to “demean” or “attack” the achievements of so many hardworking Americans. “I’ve earned my right to fly private if I choose to do so,” he declared, “and by attacking me, [Obama] is not going to convince me that I should take a bigger hit because I happen to be wealthy.”
Although Johnson did not directly address President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” (a proposal that would allow millionaires to pay a lesser share of their income in taxes than middle-income earners pay, such as Warren Buffett’s secretary), he grimaced at the notion of raising taxes on the wealthy, as he described how he joined the business world to “create jobs and opportunity [and] create value for myself and my investors.” Raising taxes and alienating America’s job producers would only suppress such ambition, he implied.
Another wealthy businessman and previous Obama supporter, former AOL executive Ted Leonsis, attacked the President’s new tax proposal in a Sept. 25 blog, titled, “Class Warfare — Yuck!” “Economic success has somehow become the new boogie man,” Leonsis writes, adding that “some in the Democratic Party are now casting about for enemies, and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success are being cast as a bad guy in a black hat.”
During an interview last week with CBS News, the BET founder took a broader tone with the federal government, arguing that the political process is too polarized, and thus has taken a toll on the economy. “I’ve been in business for over 30 years [and] I’ve never seen a time when there’s been more zero-sum game mentality in the United States among political parties,” he told CBS’s Scott Pelley during the interview.
Johnson expounded the idea that from a business standpoint, if one saw two parties arguing so relentlessly, one would not want to conduct business with either of them, but would find other parties with which to work. “And you know what you find, the Chinese who want to do business. You find the Vietnamese who want to do business. You find the Brazilians. You find the Indians want to do business with you.”
Why not a 90% tax on government union pensions over 20k a year?
Yeah, the root problem of our economic woes is that Washington doesnt have enough of our money to spend and play with. /sarcasm
So if I’m making a million a year**, I just pick up the phone and instruct my CPA to immediately shift my investments to deliver cap gains that I don’t need to realize as income until this idiocy blows over.
** ...if only!
Why not limit campaign contributions to individuals? That 5% surtax would then have its consequences.
the “Buffet tax” instead becomes “the Reid tax”
Don’t forget Nancy Pelosi. As of last year, she and her husband were worth $60M +. But since she’s a Liberal, that’s ok.
They say whatever you tax you get less of. I propose adding a new tax on all government employees. Call it the American Shared Sacrifice Patriot Act.
So a guy who used to own a small business and who retired with a million dollars in the bank would have to pay $50,000 in additional taxes, despite the fact that he currently has income of under $100,000 per year? THAT'S WHAT A TAX ON MILLIONAIRES IS. What Reid is proposing is a tax on people who earn more than a million dollars per year.
I am completely against the surtax. But, for crying out loud, "journalists" on both the left and the right, as well as politicians of all stripes, consistently miscategorize these prospective taxes.
There is such an animal as a wealth tax. Florida had it, up until a few years ago. You had to pay a percentage of your net worth to the government every year, even if your income was small. Such a tax would certainly guarantee that Warren Buffet would pay more than his secretary in taxes. (I am not advocating it--just explaining it.)
In summary: a millionaire is someone who has accumulated net assets of a million dollars or more. Such a person may or may not earn a million dollars a year. Reid and Obama are proposing taxes on earnings in excess of a million dollars, not on wealth in excess of a million dollars. If they don't understand the difference, we are in even worse trouble than we thought.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: as crooked as a barrel of snakes.